Just saw the Channel 5 programme JFK's Secret Killer: the Evidence. I should start by saying that I've never taken much interest in the welter of conspiracy theories which have always surrounded the assassination - I just assumed they were fanciful, as conspiracy theories usually are. My interest was piqued somewhat on my first visit to the USA a couple of years ago, which was to attend a conference which happened to be held in Dallas, in a hotel which overlooked Dealey Plaza. It felt rather strange to wander round the site of the killing.

So I watched the Channel 5 programme with some curiosity, half-expecting it to be the usual hyped-up nonsense, but instead the impression I had was of a carefully-researched programme which made some very interesting points. Most of these hung on the ballistic evidence. Now I do know something about ballistics including the effect of different types of bullet on the human body, and what the experts on the programme had to say made sense to me.

Without going into details, the conclusion of the programme was remarkable: that while Oswald fired two shots, seriously wounding the President with one of them, the third and most lethal shot was the result of an accidental discharge of a rifle by an inexperienced Secret Service agent in the car immediately behind the President's. Rather than admit to such an appalling mistake, the Secret Service closed ranks and did their best to destroy or conceal the evidence, thereby giving weight to the conspiracy theories. So according to the programme, the irony is while there really was a conspiracy, it wasn't the usual one - not a conspiracy to kill JFK (Oswald was a lone assassin), but a cover-up to save the reputation of the Secret Service.

Since watching the programme I have briefly browsed websites discussing the conspiracy theories and they are all to do with assassination plots, nothing like the theory included in the programme. I wonder if this has been aired in the USA (where around two-thirds of the people don't believe the Warren Commission's finding that Oswald was the only shooter) and if so what the reaction to it has been?

This is not a new theory by any means - it was the subject of a book called "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK" published in the early 1990s. Of all the conspiracy theories, it's the only one I haven't quite dismissed in my mind, though I'm far from convinced. Incidentally, if memory serves, the Agent involved, Hickey, sued the author of the book but the case was settled out of court.

Unfortunately I sold my copy of The Mortal Error on Ebay a couple of years ago, along with 30 or so other books on the assassination, otherwise I would re-read it to see how closely it matches the documentary - but from memory, it was identical in all important details.

Brian1945 wrote:This is not a new theory by any means - it was the subject of a book called "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK" published in the early 1990s. Of all the conspiracy theories, it's the only one I haven't quite dismissed in my mind, though I'm far from convinced.

There has been some debate about this on my Military Guns & Ammunition forum. The general view seems to be that it probably didn't happen, but whatever did take place has some peculiar aspects to it - particularly in terms of bullet performance. Even if you exclude the conspiracy enthusiasts, I doubt that there will ever be complete agreement over the exact chain of events.

All I can say is that the newly enhanced Zapruder film showing Kennedy's head-shot with the skull and contents blowing backwards is (a) sickening, (b) graphic, and (c) somehow far from consistent with a shot coming from behind... So here's my weirdo view on the matter, which I have had for many years now.

All the military evidence of the effects of sniper shots on the human body, and unfortunately there's tonnes of this dating back many decades, is they tend to leave small wound on entrance and a massive rupture on exit. That is the design of a sniper bullet - maximum killing effect.

The so-called "magic bullet", Oswald's second shot, could have indeed lined up Kennedy and Connolly through the chest and be fired by Oswald, and it survived basically intact having passed through two bodies including hitting bone.

And yet the next bullet, the third "kill shot" fired later, supposedly identical manufacture in every way and from the same gun, exploded on impact at the back of Kennedy's skull then exited cleanly through a small hole at the front and then hit nothing further in the car and then disappeared. And so accurate a shot on a small, downwards, traversing, receding target sighted through trees...

To me, that doesn't seem consistent with the Oswald lone-gun nutcase narrative and it never did. Certainly I can see him shooting three shots - the bookstore evidence says he did to start with. But that third shot has all the hallmarks of being shot from near straight-on in front of Kennedy: To me, somewhere from the railway bridge or (infamous) grassy knoll is the more likely location of that gun. Pretty easy for any accomplished marksman to hit a closing target that is barely traversing the sights.

Does this make for a conspiracy with Oswald and someone else? I think not, nor do I pay homage to any Southern governor's fantasy. But was Oswald the only shooter? I really do have my suspicions about that.

Tony Williams wrote:The general view seems to be that it probably didn't happen, but whatever did take place has some peculiar aspects to it - particularly in terms of bullet performance. Even if you exclude the conspiracy enthusiasts, I doubt that there will ever be complete agreement over the exact chain of events.

I very much doubt this particular theory. It's not supported by the Zapruder film or by eyewitnesses who were right there (most famously the Newman family). Yes, it is just about possible, as are 100 other rival theories.

But I think that you almost touch on the most important aspect of the JFK circus. I agree, there will never be complete agreement over the exact chain of events. There will never be a solution that has everyone agreeing that now we all know what happened.

But part of the reason for this is that there were lots of actual little conspiracies going on. Before Kennedy’s death there were people inside and outside the security services who would have liked to see him dead. Once he had been shot they would have started shredding stuff, spreading false stories to point attention away from themselves, even if they had nothing to do with the assassination. Similarly, various different rival bits of security service tried to use the event to push whatever their agenda was; blame the Russians, avoid WW3, blame the mafia, etc. None of this means that any of these people had anything to do with the shooting or knew who had done it, just that they were doing what spooks do. As with the suggestion that an accidental shooting was being covered up, it is possible that one group were covering up the fact that they had been spying on Oswald for years but then failed to prevent the shooting. Another group fabricated evidence to support the “lone gunman” theory (there’s a faked photo, etc), but this may just have been paranoia about a war with the soviets, not proof of any involvement.

So my take would be that there has been so much BS; so many fake confessions; so much faked evidence; so many different theories; that we will never know the truth for 100% certain. If one of the people who confessed to being in a conspiracy to assassinate the Prez was telling the truth we will never know because he wasn’t any more plausible than the 50 liars with similar stories.

Zep makes interesting points which will keep the controversy alive for ever, I still think it was most likely the lone gunman though.